The police

[BlackForestCake]

I was just thinking that the GC analysis is the only one that can explain the behaviour of police forces up and down the country.

The liberal position is “It’s awful that the police are institutionally racist and misogynist, but it’s great that they stand up for LGBTQ+ people!”

No. The promotion of trans ideology is part of the misogyny.

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
I've dealt with quite a few teachers for things who have kept their jobs - so teaching i would guess is not taking these things seriously. Including safeguarding of children with mental health issues who are just allowed to walk out of school suicidal as the school can't cope with them. "Allow then to walk out of school premises and phone the police, then its their problem to deal with."

Teachers claiming that a 10 year old is so violent they can't cope with him in school - despite them having specific plans in place for such children and how to deal with them. Parents fully on board to help the school if required - but instead, easier to phone the police on 999 rather than waiting for the parents to arrive from work.

And i do accept criticism of the force so long as its fair & proportional. But i won't accept that the 'whole barrel is rotten' scenario which posters on here are eluding to.

Chersfrozenface
Yes & yes - but to be honest on our shift (and the adjoining shifts) I don't hear it.

Our whatsap group mainly concerns if we have enough milk, or my car won't start, can you pick me up for work.

Most of the things we talk about are either concerned with jobs we are dealing with and what the best course of action, what promises the management team have let us down on again, how their particular sports team or training went etc etc. Other than that, your single crewed and out on the next job.

There was a good example recently of where the Police should start to listen.

A poster on here said she had been dog walking late at night and a Police car had driven past her (in a quiet rural area iirc) 4 or 5 times, slowing to a crawl as they went past her without engaging or stopping to speak to her. Another poster (I can't remember who but was something to do with the Police) simply wouldn't acknowledge that this behaviour might frighten this woman (particularly given the recent revelations about appalling Police behaviour and a misogynistic culture which seems to be prevalent across the country). Just wouldn't listen to that poster or many others that no matter if the Police had no nefarious intentions at all, they simply hadn't considered that this behaviour (particularly in the current climate of distrust of the Police) would frighten women and continued to compound this by insisting the poster was ridiculous for being frightened. If this kind of attitude is wide spread and applicable to other situations, It's hardly surprising that women find it difficult to trust the Police.

And no, I don't expect you to quit and haven't said you personally are a 'bad apple'. The Police Force as an entity are the barrel being spoiled by the bad apples. Public trust is low in the entity because of those bad apples.

The Police as an entity seem to be doing very little to change that.

We know police numbers have dropped since the Conservatives came to power 12 years ago and that Johnson, when PM, said this would change. Has the "rush" to make up the 20,000 missing officers resulted in a lowering of standards?

I don't know what recruitment is like but I have heard that officers aren't interested in the CID now whereas when I worked for the police, over 20 years ago, an ambition to get into the CID was very common. Has the police career become a hard job to "sell" to young people? If it has what will that mean going forward, numbers dropping or standards dropping?

VestofAbsurdity
So whats your point here - he shouldn't have been hired for something he might do in the future?

Well he shouldn't have been hired should he? He shouldn't have been placed in that position of power like Wayne Couzens shouldn't have.

Are you saying he is another example of why we shouldn't trust the police?

Of course it is another example of the erosion of trust in the Police coming on the back of Wayne Couzens.

The public are right to question what kind of people are currently being recruited into the Police.

I am in agreement with you on the point you make about Police Officers breaking the law, any law, being summarily dismissed. The Police should be held to higher standards than the rest of the public, that should go without saying you cannot have law breakers enforcing the law it's that simple otherwise it's one rule for them and one rule for the rest.

Schools have robust safeguarding policies though and external regular investigations. Safeguarding fails by schools have resulted in changes in policy and system overhaul. Dunblane. Ian Huntley. No they are not perfect but they don't hand waive away serious breeches like the abuse of power to murder citizens as 'one bad apple''.

The police close ranks. Make excuses. Say not all police officers. Insist lessons will be learned and change nothing. That's the difference.

I mean personally, from your attitude I don't think you can be part of the solution so I'd rather someone else who listens was in your position of power. Sorry. Do better.

Waitwhat23
Not sure why they did that and not stop & talk to her initially - unless they were looking beyond her - were they waiting for someone else coming and she happened to be there. We sometimes 'lie in wait' for say a burglar to try and push them back towards another unit. Not sure unless I can read the posts or find out what they were actually doing at the time. Perhaps they were safeguarding to protect her (lone female walking), but didn't want to stop her in case that made her more nervous in light of the Everard case.

ancientgran
CID is more or less a prisoner handling team now with long hours. Good if your single but no good if you're in a relationship or have children. Start at 0700, job come in a 1700 hours so you are kept on. Finally get the job to a conclusion at 0200 hours - go home and back in for 0700 again. Not ideal.

Response teams are more popular - go to the initial jobs, find the victims, safeguard them, arrest the suspects, create the crime scene & seize the evidence then hand it over to CID - ready for the next emergency.

VestofAbsurdity
But you had no idea that he was going to do this when he started
Presumably if he was asked in his job interview "Do you intend to murder you wife in the future?" he would have said "No"

I'm interested though that you see it as another erosion of trust - someone who has not been found guilty of anything yet.

You would agree with me then that nurse Letby can be seen in the same light - despite other posters on here saying I can not use Letby as an example of a 'bad nurse' as she has not been found guilty of anything.

Strange how you can use it as an example of mistrust in the police, but not for nursing...?

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
Hasn't filtered to the schools where we are. And I'm sure my colleagues on here will say the same.

And I'm not talking about incidents like Dunblane. I'm talking about the everyday occurrences of children being allowed to walk out of school, without any attempt by the school staff to stop them. Then they call the police as a 'missing child'

Children 'violently kicking off at school' - 10/11 years olds who are just naughty. Easier to phone the police than contact the parents. Pass the job onto police as we have to safeguard the other children in the school. Then the police can sort it out.

What 'system overhauls' have been put in place then to prevent these from happening? Teachers too frightened to take hold of child - easier to just let them walk off and phone police.

Felix125

I was interested in your hypothetical story about Mrs Jones and Mrs Smith. I can see the point you are making.

On the other hand, let's take a real-life example, that of Caroline Farrow, the wife of a Catholic priest, mother of five, deeply religious, pillar of the community etc.

Someone makes a report that Farrow has been writing malicious comments about them on an internet forum, comments that are so terrible they amount to hate crime.

The person who makes the report has a conviction for violent assault, several convictions for fraud and a long history of reporting people they don't like to the police for writing insulting comments about them on social media, as well as a history of serial litigation against individuals and newspapers.

To my mind, you don't have to be a genius to work out who is the trouble-maker in this situation. Yet Plod turned up at Caroline Farrow's door, arrested her, took her in for questioning and confiscated her laptop, daughter's iPad and other devices, which they still haven't returned.

RoyalCorgi
Can we just dismiss the reporting person's account at source in this case then?

I deal with 'working girls' on a regular basis who have been victims of crimes - yet most of them have been perpetrators of crimes themseleves, thefts etc and are dishonest people in theory - do we just dismiss them? Does her account automatically be less plausible due to her past convictions? Would she be targeted by people who know this and think "well, the police won't trust her will they - we can do what we like to her?"

Or do we take each report separately on a case by case basis?

Does each investigation have to be impartial?

Or can we 'swing it' in one direction because we don't trust one of the parties involved.

I think this is dropping into a dangerous territory if we start to not be impartial as a rule.

But you had no idea that he was going to do this when he started
Presumably if he was asked in his job interview "Do you intend to murder you wife in the future?" he would have said "No"

That's a rather facile argument, my point is what are the tests, checks, etc., done in recruitment of police these days? How many Police Officers have been arrested and convicted of murder, and how many arrested and charged with attempted murder in previous decades? Here we have two in as many years. Something has gone seriously wrong, don't you think?

I'm interested though that you see it as another erosion of trust - someone who has not been found guilty of anything yet.

Of course it is an erosion of trust particularly after Wayne Couzens.

You would agree with me then that nurse Letby can be seen in the same light - despite other posters on here saying I can not use Letby as an example of a 'bad nurse' as she has not been found guilty of anything.
Strange how you can use it as an example of mistrust in the police, but not for nursing...?

You don't think the Lucy Letby case and all the other scandals around maternity in the NHS have eroded confidence and trust in the NHS? Of course they have.

Stalking women is now 'waiting for a perp to wander by'.

I deal with 'working girls' on a regular basis who have been victims of crimes - yet most of them have been perpetrators of crimes themseleves, thefts etc and are dishonest people in theory - do we just dismiss them? Does her account automatically be less plausible due to her past convictions? Would she be targeted by people who know this and think "well, the police won't trust her will they - we can do what we like to her?"

Wow. This answer demonstrates precisely the problem most of us have with the police. You equate "working girls" - vulnerable women who are for the most part are traumatised, have been trafficked, have been subjected to physical and emotional abuse, are often controlled by men - with a violent man who has a history of using the law vexatiously to silence people who point out the sort of person he is.

I find it chilling.

VestofAbsurdity
What tests can you put in place that would foresee a future murder?
And if so, why don't we use these in other jobs?

Are you seriously suggesting that every future murder, every future crime could have been picked up at the point of recruitment?

I have said repeatedly on here that checks should be done during the recruitment process - and convictions for any offence would render your application null and void.

I have suggested using intelligence (non convictions) gathered on applicants to vet them - but people on here have said that you can't do that as its a 'Stazi' style of doing things and should not be used to vet someones employment.

Regular checks should be done whilst you're in the job - so if you commit offences, you should be gone. So if you are caught driving 35 in a 30 - its an offence and you go.

What else do you suggest?

I think Letby has eroded confidence in the NHS - but i was told off for using her as an example of this (page 1 or 2). Its strange that its OK to use this police officer charged with attempt murder though don't you think?

AlisonDonut
I've not said that at all

Were the officers stalking the female - if so, where is your evidence of this?

I've just suggested - where they doing something else?

RoyalCorgi
Not at all - its an anecdotal example and happens all the time where we are. Yes, they are vulnerable as a 'working girl' - a vulnerable victim, but most have convictions against them for various dishonesty offences. So does this sway your opinion of how they should be dealt with?

The person making the report against Farrow - were they vulnerable? have they been targeted by other people which makes them more vulnerable? Are they a victim of modern slavery, exploitation? Or do we just ignore that fact?

I think investigations should be impartial and protect the victims in ever case, despite their back ground.

So I'll ask you again:

Does each investigation have to be impartial?

Or can we 'swing it' in one direction because we don't trust one of the parties involved.

I've not said that at all

You said 'Not sure why they did that and not stop & talk to her initially - unless they were looking beyond her - were they waiting for someone else coming and she happened to be there. We sometimes 'lie in wait' for say a burglar to try and push them back towards another unit. Not sure unless I can read the posts or find out what they were actually doing at the time. Perhaps they were safeguarding to protect her (lone female walking), but didn't want to stop her in case that made her more nervous in light of the Everard case.'

She was walking her fucking dog. They circled her 5 fucking times. You were on the fucking thread. You fucking well fucking knew what she was fucking doing because she fucking said so on the fucking thread.

But high fives yeah?

From the journalist who co-wrote the article on Sunday:

https://twitter.com/hannahalothman/status/1591887964732268551?s=46&t=Ax2N8uYqqNIBrmCeZbMH7g

"A former police officer texts: “I wonder how many [police officers’] mobiles have been thrown in the river this weekend.”"

The article with share token:

How a dead officer’s iPhone exposes misogyny, corruption and racism in a police force

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7c4cfed6-62a1-11ed-bd54-70403457622f?shareToken=106820000646205acc241904e25278fb

ResisterRex
I haven't said it doesn't occur - but it occurs in lots of other professions too.
Or are you suggesting its just a police issue?

I have said repeatedly on here that checks should be done during the recruitment process - and convictions for any offence would render your application null and void.

I have suggested using intelligence (non convictions) gathered on applicants to vet them - but people on here have said that you can't do that as its a 'Stazi' style of doing things and should not be used to vet someones employment.

Regular checks should be done whilst you're in the job - so if you commit offences, you should be gone. So if you are caught driving 35 in a 30 - its an offence and you go.

What else do you suggest?

AlisonDonut
You don't know what was happening and why they 'circled' her.

Are you suggesting that they must have been planning something untoward then?

This is why you must NEVER EVER say anything to the police without a solicitor, and only confirm your name and address when asked.

They twist absolutely everything you say and pretend that black is white to try and trap you.

Just to address your little whataboutery regarding schools.
The reason school staff don't restrain children is because you need special training to have this and most staff don't. Risk assault charges if an injury occurs if you fail to follow school policy.

You'd expect a pc to know that and not be advocating for civilians to take the law into their own hands.

The person making the report against Farrow - were they vulnerable? have they been targeted by other people which makes them more vulnerable? Are they a victim of modern slavery, exploitation? Or do we just ignore that fact?

No, they're not vulnerable. They are not a victim of modern slavery or exploitation. They are a criminal. They have a law degree but are barred from practising law because of their criminal convictions. Even a cursory glance at their social media activity demonstrates the kind of person they are. Does the fact that they have a history of making malicious allegations not ring any alarm bells at all? Really?

You think investigations should be impartial? By which you mean, if a proven violent criminal makes a completely unevidenced accusation against an innocent person with no criminal history, then you are more than happy to harass that innocent person by arresting her, removing her from her family, taking her devices away (including one belonging to her child) and holding on to them for several months?

Are you serious? What on earth happened to common sense?

I'm afraid it's exactly this sort of attitude that allows domestic abusers to claim that they are the victims of domestic abuse. And it's how you end up with situations like that of Shana Grice - a woman who repeatedly reported her fears to the police that her ex was going to kill her, and who was fined for wasting police time.

And then, guess what, was murdered by her ex.

Everything you've written suggests to me that you haven't learnt anything from that case, or other similar ones. I don't know what your intention was in posting in this thread, but I'm afraid it's resulted in my confidence in the police being even lower than it was before, and trust me, it was pretty damn low to start with.

The person making the report against Farrow - were they vulnerable? have they been targeted by other people which makes them more vulnerable? Are they a victim of modern slavery, exploitation? Or do we just ignore that fact?

Isn't the person in question an ex criminal who has been in jail for sex with a minor?

Vulnerable! Not with the amount of golf clubs they like to threaten people with! Oh my days. Still after all this time they cannot be arsed to do any research into what is going on here.

High five everyone, high five.

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
School staff also have a responsibility to prevent children coming to harm and a duty of care for them whilst in school. So in your case, they would be happy to let a suicidal or disturbed child walk off the premises and become a high risk missing from home - rather than take hold of them. It would not be an assault if they were doing this either.

RoyalCorgi
And how do you know the accusation is un-evidenced at the point of reporting?
And how do you know the other person is innocent without investigation?
Do we just assume, basing it on common sense only?

So OK then, the next victim I deal with for any sort of job - if they have previous convictions against them for being dishonest - you want me to ignore their report then?

And your saying that's not being biased or impartial?

Common sense policing it is then?

"I'm sorry, you have a number of previous convictions for shop theft - so I'm not going to take seriously your report of being assaulted, as common sense would tell me that your lying"

Is that really how you want things to be?

AlisonDonut
So we constantly just ignore any report they make from now on

So, if they end up dead or seriously assaulted, who's fault's that then?
"Well the police didn't take any of their reports seriously........lessons will have to be learned"

Felix id like to thank you for your dogged replies to all the posters on this thread. There is a lot of concern expressed that the police do not believe women, the police do not listen to women, the police are dismissive of women, and every single post you makes confirms that all those posters are right to have concerns.

Your attitude is smug and belittling and your self-righteousness shines through every single post. I echo the point made a above - women, if you find yourself in bother with the police, do not say anything at all.

Your self-awareness is nonexistent. I'm sure you think you're doing a really good job on here, but in reality, you're coming across as a complete knob insufferable prig.